The Anglobitch Thesis contends that the brand of feminism that arose in the Anglosphere (the English-speaking world) in the 1960s has an ulterior misandrist (anti-male) agenda quite distinct from its self-proclaimed role as ‘liberator’ of women.

Saturday, 29 December 2012

Misandrist feminism is a creation of the Baby Boomer generation. Most
demographers argue that the Baby Boomers will start dying off en masse in
2015. By 2025, there should be very few of them left and Generation X will hold
most of their power and influence. With their passing, will the feminism
they promoted start dying too?

In our view, the Boomers’ decline has already exposed many unpleasant
truths about ‘the Love Generation’.The
bucolic reputation of the British 1960s is rapidly crumbling. The Jimmy Savile revelations of 2012, for
instance, exposed the vaunted 'Sixties' as an era of conspiracy, pedophilia and
sexual coercion. For decades, Boomer domination of the media had maintained
the illusion that the 'Sixties' was a classless utopia defined by the Beatles and
Mary Quant. As their grip slipped, however, a harsher truth emerged.

Consider this: after
2015, every Boomer assumption will
come under similar attack. And this revolution will swiftly transform the whole
Anglosphere.

Middle class Boomers of the 'Sixties' pedestalized women as no generation
before or since. But many White Knights will fall from 2015 to 2025, leaving us
a free road to advance our agendas: to state the case bluntly, Time’s scythe will leave us masters of the
field. Of course, pussy-begging maggots like Futrelle will maintain a spirited rearguard
resistance – but without Boomer patronage, expect them to seem ever less mainstream, ever more eccentric,
ever more the pussy-begging losers they are.

In sum, the next few years represent unprecedented opportunities to
reject, ignore or challenge Anglo-American feminism. Expect also the
accelerated decline of organized religion; the marginalization of academic
anti-essentialism; and, above all, the collapse of socon politics. Future
conservatism must jettison its traditional links to religion, sexual repression
and ‘the family’ in order to survive. Mitt Romney’s catastrophic defeat
demonstrates that fidelity to such outdated Boomer ‘norms’ only results in
electoral failure. Indeed, the leadership of the British Conservative Party is
already expressing concerns about its ‘toxic’ ties to ‘tradition’ in a country
where 35% of people are single.

So let us take heart as the curtain falls on the Boomers' fading
empire.

Friday, 21 December 2012

Schoolboys in Imperial
Germany were encouraged to write appreciative essays on the subject of dying
for the fatherland. It won’t be too long, I fear, before Anglo-American
schoolboys are writing essays about dying for the Matriarchy. Certainly, the
Anglosphere seems to be moving in that direction.

With popular support for
the unwinnable wars in the Near East waning, the legacy media is redefining
those wars in terms of a matriarchal crusade against 'patriarchal barbarism’.

Unwitting tool of these
sickly agenda is a hapless Afghan girl shot by the Taliban.Never mind that the Taliban
offer at least as much violence against subaltern males in Afghanistan – all
males are the enemy in this hasty redefinition, and thus unworthy of
consideration or sympathy:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — When the time came to choose medical treatment for Malala Yousafzai, the 14-year-old Pakistani schoolgirl who defied the Taliban
and then was gunned down by them, her family and doctors faced a world
of possibilities after a global outpouring of advice and offers of
assistance.

Whatever they chose, a medical jet from the United Arab Emirates was
waiting to take her to hospitals abroad. Pakistani and American
officials had talked about arranging treatment for her at the giant
American military hospital at Landstuhl, Germany.

A well-developed offer came from former Representative Gabrielle
Giffords and her husband, Mark E. Kelly, who had gone through their own
treatment ordeal after she was shot in the head last year. They had gone
as far as to line up a noted neurosurgeon and had even arranged a
transportation option of their own to the United States — with a
television celebrity offering to quietly foot the fuel bill.

Those were among dozens of offers from across the world. But when the
time came to fly the wounded schoolgirl out of Pakistan, in the early
hours of Monday, a deal from Britain to accept Malala at a specialized hospital in Birmingham proved hard to beat.

But first, to get her there.

Out of worry that the Taliban would fulfill their promise to take a
second shot at the teenage activist, the dawn run from the military
hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, to the airport was shrouded in
secrecy, said Rehman Malik, Pakistan’s interior minister.

“I directed the airport staff to remain incognito, because there was an
alert, threats from the Taliban that they would kill her,” he said. “We
were very careful.”

Yet there was little doubt that each of the possibilities, especially
given the diplomatic tensions between Pakistan and America, carried its
own political risk.

Initially, Pakistani officials had approached the American Embassy for help, officials from both countries said. Two options were discussed, Interior Minister Malik said: the possible
use of an American military facility in Oman, and evacuation to the
Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. “We scrambled like hell,”
one American official said. “We were standing by, ready to do anything.

There were also private American offers — from Ms. Giffords and Mr.
Kelly, plus at least three other “serious” parties, the American
official added. One came from an American businessman with ties to
senior figures in the Pakistan government; another came from a
constituent of Senator John Kerry, who has longstanding political ties
to the country.

Meanwhile Ms. Giffords’s doctor, Dr. Dong Kim, the head of neurosurgery at the Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center,
got ready to travel to Pakistan. Mr. Kelly, a former astronaut, said he
had recruited an American celebrity, whom he declined to name, to
finance the fuel costs of an emergency plane trip from Peshawar to
Houston.

“We were just trying to offer the best help available, as we understand it from being down this road,” Mr. Kelly said.

Mr. Kelly also pressed political contacts in the White House, State
Department and Pakistan to help push the offer through. He said that
Johns Hopkins University made a similar offer. But over the weekend, Mr. Kelly was told by a senior State Department
official that “Pakistan has decided to solve this domestically.”

The British connection, however, had already been well established at
that point through two doctors, both experts in trauma injuries and one
of whom was of Pakistani descent, who happened to be visiting Pakistan
at the time of the shooting last week

The medics were quickly drafted into the effort to save Ms. Yousafzai’s
life. They were flown to Peshawar to help with the initial diagnosis and
then on to the hospital in Rawalpindi. They shared in decisions about
how long to keep the patient in Pakistan, officials from Britain and
Pakistan said, declining to name the two.

Early Monday morning, the medics accompanied a Pakistani brigadier in
watching over Ms. Yousafzai during the flight to Britain. The air
ambulance that ferried them had been offered by the United Arab
Emirates, a country with close political ties to President Asif Ali
Zardari.

By several accounts there were sound medical reasons why the American
offers of help to Ms. Yousafzai were not accepted, including the
lengthier flight to the United States.

But Britain may also have held other attractions. While the United
States and Pakistan have engaged in diplomatic warfare in recent years —
over the Osama bin Laden raid, drone strikes and the controversy
surrounding a Central Intelligence Agency contractor, Raymond Davis —
Britain has carefully cultivated a less adversarial relationship. Britain has been a major aid donor to Pakistan for decades, and many
high-ranking Pakistanis, in political life and in the country’s armed
forces, have been educated or trained in Britain.

“If we had an offer of British help and American help, all things being
equal we would go with the British,” one senior Pakistani official said.
“It makes more sense.”

Exact details of Ms. Yousafzai’s condition remain hazy. Doctors say she
requires treatment for a serious skull fracture, caused by a bullet that
passed through her head. Later, she may require long-term neurological
rehabilitation.

Ms. Yousafzai’s schoolmaster father, Ziauddin, who inspired her to start
her high-profile campaign for girls’ education and women’s rights in
2009, did not travel with her to Birmingham yesterday, Pakistani
officials said.

SOURCE: New York Times

As if by magic, the War
against Terror is becoming a war to impose Anglo feminism on unwilling lands
and peoples. Of course, both Anglo
socons and feminists clamor for this – after all, both groups are bound by the
same puritanical misandry that defines the Anglo nations.

The problem with their
crooked agenda is this: very few Anglo-American men want to die for the matriarchy. Apart from White Knights and lumpen-working
class idiots, most men now view feminism as a threat to their lives and
liberty.Having seen so many fathers,
uncles and brothers crash and burn in ‘no fault’ divorces, not to mention
having experienced discrimination in every sphere of adult life,very few Anglo-American American males will
be signing up to defend women’s ‘rights’ any time soon.

I have an alternative
solution. If feminists want to expand the matriarchy, perhaps they should do it
themselves?

The Anglo-American men’s
movement has generally internalized the Darwinian worldview, at least as it
pertains to gender relations. Unfortunately, this world-view can be used to
legitimate male expendability. Moreover, the Darwinian model explains
institutionalized misandry quite well – especially military gendercide, biased
divorce laws and negative media representations of men. Indeed, many feminists
and White Knights cherry pick aspects of evolutionary psychology as conceptual
justification for male disposability, female hypergamy and other misandrist
agendas.

The contemporary men’s
movement remains marginalized because it seeks to mimic feminism. MRAs
complain about the Sympathy Gap they experience, assuming they will reflexively
attract the same sympathy and support as misandrist gender-feminism. They won’t
of course – least of all from the male elite, who view them with bemused
contempt. How, then, should the men’s movement proceed? If men are biologically
programmed to compete for status and sex and view other men as expendable, how
can a cogent and effective men’s movement ever develop?

The answer is that it
won’t – at least, not in the way feminism has developed, with political
patronage and government grants. It must choose a different road, one that
acknowledges public indifference to men’s issues. In short, the Sympathy Gap
needs expanding, not contracting – and reciprocating in kind. Since men
are treated as expendable mercenaries, they should embrace that role –
sever all social bonds and obligations, shun permanent relationships and
generally view the world with cynical detachment.

The strongest man is he
who stands alone; and no man demonstrates this truth more than the mercenary
male, striding from land to land without bonds, commitments or ideals. Stunned
and shaking, the elite and its feminist allies already tremble at this rising
tide of masculine disengagement.